My blog provides alternative view on Kashmir dispute and politics of South Asia, especially India Pakistan relations. It aims to educate people that they can make informed judgements.

Friday, 8 June 2018

The Gilgit Baltistan question, Basil Nabi

The Gilgit Baltistan question

As
the Prime Minister made his way to the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly,
as it was known then, he was greeted along the way by locals waving shoes in
the air.
The Prime Minister was making his way to the Assembly to unveil the Government
of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018. Unsurprisingly, he was taken aback by the
protests, and could not understand as to why the locals were so unhappy with a
law which was supposedly bringing them at par with the rest of the country.

But
in actuality, it was not. The 2018 Order, for what it’s worth, does in fact
make efforts to establish a system similar to that present in the four
provinces of Pakistan, albeit, without affording provincial status to the
region. And that is where the problem lies.

As
is known to many, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have been demanding
integration into Pakistan as its fifth province for over 70 years. However, on
each occasion that such a demand has arisen, it has been shot down on the basis
of a single rationale. This rationale dictates that the people of
Gilgit-Baltistan can’t be granted provincial status until the final resolution
of the Kashmir dispute, and that any attempt to do so would undermine and
weaken Pakistan’s ‘principled’ stance vis-à-vis the UN Resolutions. This
argument has gained traction as the UN Resolutions appear to lump both areas
together, and treat them as one and the same.

The
UN Resolution dated 21.04.1948, as well as the others, were passed under
Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which in effect, deals with non-binding
resolutions. In this resolution, the UN Security Council had ‘recommended’
for the demilitarization of the Kashmir territory, after which arrangements for
a plebiscite would take place. Pakistan was to ensure that all those tribal
people and other Pakistani nationals who had infiltrated Kashmir for purposes
of fighting would leave the area. During the course of such evacuation, India
and the U.N. Commission would then discuss and finalize a demilitarization plan
for India, which interestingly, did not require total withdrawal. As per the UN
recommended plan, India would be allowed to retain a minimal level of forces in
the area.

Nehru stated that the “fate of the State of
Jammu & Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. The pledge we
have given not only to people of Kashmir but also to the world. We will not,
and cannot, back out of it”

After
this, another UN Resolution dated 13.08.1948 was passed, which contained the
terms of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This resolution acknowledged
the penetration of Pakistani regular troops into Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad
Kashmir, and termed such an event as constituting a ‘material change’ in the
situation on the ground. As such, the UN had sought for Pakistan to withdraw
all its troops from the area, as well as all remaining Pakistani nationals.
After this was done, the said area was to be governed by local authorities. On
the other side of the defacto border, India would be required to draw up a plan
with the Commission for demilitarization on its side.

As
history would have it, Pakistan and India, from 1948 onwards, have been
quarrelling over the interpretation of such aspects of the resolutions, and in
particular, the mode of demilitarization. India contends that the withdrawal of
Pakistani forces was a sine qua non to any plebiscite, whereas the Pakistani
side claims that Pakistani forces were required to complete the withdrawal only
upon India finalizing a plan for demilitarization on its side of the defacto
border.

Interestingly,
whereas both sides had disputed the manner by which demilitarization was to
take place, neither had denied the validity of the plebiscite itself. It has
always been Pakistan’s stated position that a plebiscite must be held in
Kashmir. It is also a fact that India was not only the party to bring the
dispute to the Security Council, it had also acknowledged the validity of the
plebiscite on several occasions after the passage of the resolutions. This was
acknowledged in UN Resolutions dated 05.01.1949 and 14.03.1950, which
unequivocally noted the acceptance of the plebiscite demand by both India and
Pakistan. Furthermore, Nehru is reported to have stated on November 2, 1947,
whilst speaking on All India Radio, that the “fate of the State of Jammu &
Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. The pledge we have given not
only to people of Kashmir but also to the world. We will not and cannot back
out of it”.

Thereafter,
on November 25, 1947, Nehru informed the Indian parliament that “we have
suggested that when people of Kashmir are given a chance to decide their
future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such
as United Nations Organization”.

Hence,
certain points become palpably clear in regard to the resolutions and
Pakistan’s position in relation to them. The resolutions appear to be
non-binding in nature, thereby meaning that the Security Council cannot enforce
them. However, upon acceptance by both sides, aspects of the resolutions would
certainly become binding in regards to the parties themselves. As such, the
holding of the plebiscite, as espoused by the UN Security Council, was binding
inter se the parties as a result of their acceptance, however aspects
pertaining to the manner of demilitarization, by virtue of being disputed and
under disagreement, were not. The lack of agreement on this aspect was also
noted in UN Resolution dated 10.11.1951 and other resolutions, which call upon
the two countries to come to an agreement on the mode of demilitarization.

As
such, until the mode of demilitarization is agreed upon between the parties, as
stated in the UN Resolutions itself, the said aspects of the resolutions cannot
be effective or enforceable. Hence, in the meantime, Pakistan would be well
within its rights to afford the people of Gilgit-Baltistan a governance system
which best protects and furthers their rights. Doing so would not be in
violation of any UN mandate, nor would it infringe upon Pakistan’s principled
stand. If anything, such an action would instead help further their cause.

In
fact, it may be noted that even if Gilgit-Baltistan was to be considered a
non-self-governing territory for purposes of the UN Charter, such as Puerto
Rico, even then, Pakistan would be obligated to keep the interests of its
inhabitants paramount, with utmost attention to be paid to providing them with
self-governance, as is their desire.

Keeping
all this in mind, a provincial status for the region, conditional on the final
resolution of the conflict on the basis of a plebiscite, shall not take away
from Pakistan’s principled stand. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan are entitled
to representation in the institutions which are to make decisions for them, and
a stake in the affairs of the entity which governs them. Affording them such a
status would go a long way in addressing the growing concerns of the local
populace. And it would also go a long way in dispelling the unfortunate
perception that is developing, which is that the state seems confused, straddling
those who seek to leave the Federation, and distancing and alienating those who
earnestly desire to be Pakistanis in the truest sense of the word.

The
writer is a Karachi based lawyer. He can be reached at basil.nabi@gmail.com.
Twitter: @basilnabi

About Me

Dr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. He passed BA Honours in Politics and History, and Mphil in International Relations (title of the thesis, ‘Kashmir and Partition of India’); and title of his PhD thesis is ‘Kashmir- An issue of a nation not a dispute of a land’.

Apart from this Dr Shabir Choudhry passed Post Graduates Certificates in Education, and NVQ Assessor’s qualifications; and taught English in London.

Political Achievements

Founder member of JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front established in 1977) and got elected as a Press Secretary in 1984.

Became its Secretary General in 1985, and resigned from this post in 1996.

Got elected President of JKLF and Europe in May 1999, and decided not to contest in elections of July 2001.

Said good - bye to the JKLF as it is in many groups and is largely seen as advancing a Pakistani agenda on Kashmir dispute, and set up a new party Kashmir National Party in May 2008.

.

At present, he is:

·Spokesman Kashmir National Party and Director Diplomatic Committee;

·Spokesman for International KashmirAlliance;

·Founder member and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs;

Previously

·A founder Member and Trustee/ Director of London based registered charity, Kashmir Foundation International and resigned from this position in August 2001.

·Regularly take part in the Sessions of the UN Human Rights (Commission) now Council in Geneva; and address various conferences and seminars to oppose violence and highlight the Kashmir cause.

·Participated in a Round Table Conference on Kashmir, organised by Socialist Group of European Parliament in Brussels in 1993.

·Addressed as a Chief Guest in a seminar on issue of Mangla Dam during the UN Sub Commission’s proceedings in August 2003.

·Addressed as a key - note speaker in a seminar on the issue of Gilgit and Baltistan, organised by Association of British Kashmiris.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker on human rights conference in Paris in 1991.

·Addressed at CambridgeUniversity as a Chief Guest in a conference on Kashmir in 1990.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker at New Delhi conference on Kashmir, which was part of Track Two diplomacy in November 2000.

·In September 2008, addressed a Conference arranged by Interfaith International in Geneva, topic of which was:“Kashmir Issue, Terrorism and Human Rights”.

·Addressed as a speaker in a NGO Conference on Self - Determination in Geneva in August 2000.

·Addressed as a keynote speaker in a fringe meeting of Liberal Democrats at their Annual Conference in Brighton in 1995.

·Participated in World Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993.

·Before President Clinton's visit to India and Pakistan in 2000, lead a JKLF delegation to the State Department to discuss Kashmir dispute and situation in South Asia.

·Also had two rounds of meetings with senior State Department officials before President Musharraf’s meeting to Washington in June 2003.

·Apart from that had meetings with senior officials including Ministers of different countries, and also held many meetings with the State Department and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials on number of occasions.

·Played important role in advancing a Kashmiri perspective on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir; and also helped Baroness Emma Nicholson with her report ‘Kashmir: present situation and future prospects’, which was adopted by the European Parliament in May 2007.

·Won first prize in an essay competition in Urdu in 1976. It was organised by High Commission of Pakistan in London, and title of the essay was 'Qaaid-e- Azam's role in Islamic History'.

·Apart from that have addressed conferences in Brussels, Geneva, Toronto, Islamabad, Delhi, and

Publications

·Got first Urdu novel ‘Fareena’ published at the age of eighteen.

·Second Urdu novel ‘Bay-Khataa’ which was about the problems of Asian youths living in UK published in 1983.

·Third Urdu book ‘Pakistan and Kashmiri struggle for independence’ published in 1990.

·Fourth Urdu book is also on Kashmiri struggle, 'Is an independent Kashmir a conspiracy?'

·Apart from that has twenty books and booklets published in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle.

·Recent publications are: Kashmir dispute as I see it

·Different perspective on Kashmir

·JKLF visit to Pakistan Administered Kashmir

·Kashmir Needs Change of Heart

·If not self - determination then what?

·Emma Nicholson report- who has won?

·Struggle for independence, Jihad or proxy war (Introduction by Baroness Emma Nicholson)

·

Future publications

Following books were completed some time ago and shall be published in near future:

In Search of Freedom - My visit to Srinagar and Islamabad

Kashmir and Partition of India

A brief background

Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in a small village called Nakker Shimali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and like other people from the region, holds a dual nationality. He left secondary school in 1970 with no qualifications and began his life as a textile worker.

In 1975 he started part time studies and passed Matriculation from Government High School Panjeri, passed ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels from UK, and resumed full time degree course in 1981, and passed BA (Hons) in Politics and History in 1984.

He continued full time and part time jobs until he got his Mphil. He passed his PGCE (Post Graduates Certificate in Education) in 1990, and then started full time job as a Lecturer. Due to health problems he resigned from teaching in 1999. At present he is self - employed, provides private tuition, translation and interpretation and consultancy.

Through out his adult life he has actively worked for the cause of Kashmir, and even during long illness he effectively carried out his responsibilities as a leader of the JKLF, a ‘prolific writer’ and consistent campaigner of Rights Movement and peace in Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia.